Are the Recent String of Hacker Attacks a False Flag Operation?

Corporate media is starting to ask the same question that the alternative media has been asking. Are the recent string of hacker attacks a false flag operations meant to drum up support to push through Internet censorship laws that the public would otherwise protest?

Are the recent string of hacker attacks a government sponsored operation meant to rouse public support for internet censorship bills in Congress that public would normally protest against?

Just think about some of the bills congress is trying to push through in the name of anti-piracy and cyber security.

The ProtectIP act would allow the government, even on behalf of requests of corporations to seize websites without the due process of law, entirely sidestepping the constitution and even allow complete censorship of search engines and the media.

For example, I recently wrote a story on an ABC news piece in which the news anchor announced on air there was a 10 mile evacuation issued around the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant. In that article, I embedded the video of the ABC news story that someone else recorded and posted on YouTube. I then received a phone call from ABC news demanding that I remove the story and all references I posted online. ABC explained they made a mistake in reporting the story, have redacted it and demanded that I remove all references to the story including from “YouTube, Twitter, and anywhere else the story was posted”.

Not only does ABC not have any right to demand that I remove references to their story but embedding a YouTube video someone else recorded is not copyright infringement. If the ProtectIP Act is passed we would be living in an entirely different reality. The bill would allow ABC to privately contact the government and report that my website is linking to copyrighted material and demand that my website be taken offline, without informing me at all. The government would then have the power to seize my web site and replace it with their now infamous “this domain name has been seized” image, and then require search engines and other sites to remove all links to my site, effectively erasing all traces that my site ever existed from the internet.

To be clarify, ABC would be able to do have my domain seized under the ProtectIP if they showed I engaged incopyright infringement. But as I stated before embedding a YouTube video – or even an image or an iframe — that displays the content from someone’s site isn’t copyright infringement. If I put a copy of that material on my server and display the content from my server, then that I copyright infringement. However, ProtectIP would sidestep due process, allowing my site to be shutdown based merely on the accusation.

To make the situation another bill in congress rears its ugly head to basically redefine what constitutes copyright infringement and make it a felony for those who participate. S. 978, the new “Ten Strikes” bill, would make uploading and even embedding YouTube and other copyrighted materials a felony. The bill would make the crime of engaging in copyright infringement or sharing copyrighted material a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught committing 10 offenses. So if you have uploaded 10 videos where you say, lip sync or do karaoke of a copyrighted song, or even if have embedded more than 10 YouTube videos or images of copyrighted material, which is not illegal under existing copyright laws, you may find yourself heading to court and serving a felony prison sentence.

These are exactly the types of bills that the public would be up in arms in protest over. Is it just coincidence that the politicians are saying that such bills are needed to provide us with protection against the rogue hackers who threaten our nation’s cyber security as rogue hackers run wild hacking into every government website from the state police to the FBI to NATO and launch cyber attacks even against the CIA?

Is it a coincidence that the lobbyists pushing through the Internet censorship bills have even came forward and said the hackers are the exact reason internet censorship bills are needed?

Hackers Are Everywhere. Panic!

I think the number of recent hacks and the amount of news coverage on these attacks is suspicious. Could they be false flag events to help the government regulate the Internet?

When is the last time you can recall so many news items about hackers? It’s become a massive meme within society as a whole. Hardly a day goes by without some discussion or news about hackers.

And, I should mention this right off: If there was ever any attempt to soft-pedal the word hacker versus cracker (with hacker meaning a guy who likes to fool around with his computer to discover new things and the cracker meaning the evil, black-hat criminal), well that definition is done. The hacker today is now the cracker for all practical purposes of discussion.

Now that I have that definition out of the way, let me try and figure out what is going on here.

First of all, there is no real outbreak of hacking. None of this is new. It’s just that, for some reason, the media has decided to get on the bandwagon, and now not a day goes by without some sort of hacking story. And, of course, we have to have our hacking “bad guys.” This means Anonymous, 4Chan, LulzRaft and LulzSec, among others. You can go into the sociology of these groups on your own time. You can research hacktivism and Lulz for starters.

[…]But there is a lot of attention now turned toward hacking in general.

Out of the blue, Citigroup was hacked, then the CIA, and then the FBI and other groups were hacked. Now I’m finding this a little odd and wondering who is being set up here. Supposedly, some of the hacks of government agencies stem from the arrest of a few hackers in Europe. This is an attempt to make the hackers appear to be online versions of Hezbollah, as there are retaliatory attacks reported. You know, the way terrorists would do it.

It’s all possible, but I’m suspicious of the whole scene. These hackers, who are normally casual in their approach, are made to look like bomb throwing Trotskyites from the 1920s, each wielding a Molotov cocktail and out to overthrow the government.

This above mental image, of course, is for public benefit. By making any one of these hackers appear to be a horrendous threat to public safety, a number of initiatives can be rushed through Congress. All sorts of onerous laws will be passed, which probably will not affect the scene at all but will allow more government intrusion into the Internet. It will become illegal to sell any programming tools that can be used by a hacker, despite the usefulness of these tools to security experts. It will also become a felony to attempt to deconstruct a password or enter a system for whatever reason.

I have predicted for years that at some point people are going to have to be registered and licensed to use the Internet at all. You can see it coming as clear as day. These hackers, of course, have to be stopped, and this is how they’ll do it.

There are events in history known as false flag events. These are staged by a government usually to distress the public, so the government can do something that the public would otherwise disapprove.

The U.S. is notorious for a couple of these, including Lyndon Johnson’s phony Gulf of Tonkin “event” to start the Viet Nam War in 1964. This was deemed necessary to begin a full scale war with public approval and is now well documented as a false flag event. It never happened.

Higgins News Network – HNN Headline News

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.